The Big Four Dominance Continues

[El Dude]

OK, it is really a Big One + Three, but the end result is that you have four players utterly dominating the men's sport for the 13th year in a row, from 2004 to 2016.

Here are a couple of charts that visually depict this.

1. Big Tournaments. This one shows the winners of the four Grand Slams, the World Tour Finals, the Masters, and the Olympics, from 2002--the year Federer won his first big tournament--to today.

2. Big Title Shares. The second chart takes the same information, but turns it into "title shares," giving 14 points for each Grand Slam, 8 points for the WTF, and 4 points for each Masters, for a total of 100 pts each each. This gives a sense of what percentage of big titles a player has in a given year. By the way, Novak's 74% in 2015 is the highest of the Open Era, with the possible exception of Rod Laver's 1969 when there wasn't a clear hierarchy of non-Slam titles so it is difficult to say what his % would be, but it would probably be around 70%. This year Novak is on pace to surpass that, with 40% through 48% total so far.

I took the Olympics out as it isn't part of the regular tour.

A few things to note:

1. You can see Roger's clear era of dominance, from 2004-07, and then a plateau phase of 2008-12, with 2013-present being strongly declined. Actually, these charts clearly depict how Roger really hasn't won much from 2013 to the present - that's the last three and a half years.

2. 2011 and 2013 are the two years in which the Big Four won every big title. I like to call 2012 "The Year of the Big Four," because it was the most evenly balanced between the four. 2008-2013 is the range in which at least three of the four won Slams, and 2005-2014 is the range in which at least two won Slams.

3. Each of the Big Four have had one year in which they did not have any shares of big titles: 2013 for Roger, 2015 for Rafa, 2010 for Novak, and 2014 for Murray.

 

[Fiero425]

I just posted this on another site! Any thoughts?

As time goes on, poor Sampras will continue to drop in the GOAT discussion unfortunately! I was on the bandwagon just 10 yrs ago giving him the highest accolades even w/o a FO final played! At the time, he was so far ahead of his closest rivals & dwarfed the records of past greats, we were all ready to give him a pass on taking a FO title! He had 14 Majors which was significant back then and we were ready to carry his water to place him above Laver; now he's fallen back down due to awesome results of Roger, Rafa, & Nole! He's seen his stock truly fall! Laver's 2 CYGS; 1 as an amateur & 1 as a pro in '69 put him above Sampras for good even though 3 Majors short! OTTH, the old & new GOAT lists are as follows:

Before 2006:
1- Sampras (14 Major - 6 YE #1)
2- Laver (11 Majors - 2 CYGS '62 & '69)
3- Borg (11 Majors - 5 Str. SW19 & 6 FO's)
4- Emerson (12 Majors - CGS in Singles & Dbls)
5- Connors (8 Majors)
6- Lendl (8 Majors)
7- Agassi (8 Majors - CGS)
8- McEnroe (7 Majors)
9- Wilander (7 Majors)
10- Tilden (10 Majors)

After 2010 so far, but could change:
1- Federer (17 Majors -7 SW19's, 5 USO's, 4 AO's, 1 FO, 302 wks @ #1 & CGS)
2- Djokovic (12 Majors - 200+ wks @ #1, CGS, the most Masters 1000's, winning rec. over his closest rivals)
3- Nadal (14 Majors - 9 FO's)
4- Laver (11 Majors - 2 CYGS '62 & '69)
5- Sampras (14 Major - 6 YE #1)
6- Borg (11 Majors - 5 Str. SW19 & 6 FO's)
7- Agassi (8 Majors - CGS)
8- Lendl (8 Majors)
9- Connors (8 Majors)
10- McEnroe (7 Majors)

 

[El Dude]

Good stuff, Fiero. First of all, you really should include Pro Slams among majors, which would give Rod Laver 19, not 11. He spent most of his best years on the professional tour and won 8 Pro Slams. As yu likely know, the Pro Slams were shorter tournaments, more like the World Tour Finals today - but like the WTF, they included the very best players on tour, far better than the Amateur Slams during the 60s.

But maybe Laver and Rosewall belong to the pre-Open Era, and we should treat them differently.

As I see it, right now Roger Federer maintains his hold as the greatest player of the Open Era, at least in terms of career accomplishments. After him you have Sampras, Nadal, and Djokovic clustered together in some order. By the end of this year I think Novak will have separated himself from the other two, even if he only wins another Slam.

I think the key in ranking players in terms of greatness hinges on two things:

1. How to balance Slam titles with everything else.
2. How to balance peak vs. career accomplishments.

I don't know how best to do this. I have a system that I use but it over-values career, in my opinion, as it puts Lendl and Connors above Sampras, Nadal, and Djokovic. Why? Because Lendl and Connors played a long time and won a ton of tournaments. For instance, Lendl's career is bulked up by winning 42 (!) ATP 500 equivalents.

We could also look at TennisBase.com, which is probably the site that has the most in-depth statistical analysis. They have their own complex formula for ranking players. Here is a sampling of their rankings, with the Big Four in bold:

TENNISBASE.COM'S ALL-TIME RANKINGS
1. Rod Laver 2836
2. Ken Rosewall 2607
3. Roger Federer 2603
4. Bill Tilden 2361
5. Novak Djokovic 2182
6. Ivan Lendl 2162
7. Rafael Nadal 1990
8. Pancho Gonzales 1985
9. Jimmy Connors 1845
10. Pete Sampras 1808
11. John McEnroe 1747
12. Bjorn Borg 1636
13. Andre Agassi 1555
14. Tony Wilding 1414
15. Boris Becker 1323
16. Don Budge 1310
17. Roy Emerson 1278
18. Bobby Riggs 1189
19. Stefan Edberg 1184
20. Laurence Doherty 1163
...
31. Andy Murray 942

Now maybe it is a big dubious, even hubristic, to try to rank every player in tennis history, but they have a complex formula that involves weighing different tournaments, and even opponents - the work that went into it is amazing.

It is interesting to note that they rank Novak ahead of Rafa, which is something I did earlier in the year and got a bit of (friendly) flack for.

It is also clear that Roger will soon pass Rosewall, but probably not pass Laver. I can agree with that as I think Rod Laver--not Roger--has to be considered the all-time #1. I'd probably also put Lendl below Nadal and Sampras, and Connors below Borg and McEnroe. Borg is the hardest player to rank because his career was so short and we didn't see what his decline phase would have looked like. He might also have weakened the records of Connors and Wilander. I think he might have strengthened McEnroe, who thrived on their competition. Anyhow, I think one of the big fallacies is that Borg could have finished with 17-18 Slams if he hadn't retired. I think he retired because he started to slip a bit and he had been surpassed by McEnroe. I think maybe he might have one another Slam or three, but would have finished in the 12-14 range.

By the way, it is worth noting that they rank Andy Murray ahead of Jim Courier, Guillermo Vilas, and even Mats Wilander.

 

[Fiero425]

Those lists were off the top of my head! I still can't get a handle on those pro events! They were never really discussed or shown back "in the day!" My memory goes with what I saw and heard 40-45 years ago and people like Bud Collins, Tony Trabert, and John Newcombe really never brought it up; even after I started watching tennis on TV in '73! To this day I can still hear their voices discussing the most innocuous issues, but it just wasn't much of a topic back then! :ras:

 

[El Dude]

By the way I think you WAY overrate Wilander and don't even mention Pancho Gonzales, who is one of the most underrated greats. My personal top dozen all-time would be:

1. Rod Laver
2. Roger Federer
3. Ken Rosewall
4. Bill Tilden
5. Novak Djokovic
6. Rafael Nadal
7. Pancho Gonzales
8. Pete Sampras
9. Bjorn Borg
10. Ivan Lendl
11. John McEnroe
12. Jimmy Connors

I think Rafa and Novak are neck-and-neck now, but the writing is on the wall so I give the edge to Novak. Tilden was so great for so long, even though it is hard to compare him to more recent players. But greatness, in my opinion, is about how good you are compared to your peers and Tilden was ridiculously dominant (Tennis Base gives his 13 year-end #1s, 5 more than number two, Rod Laver!!! They also give him 645 weeks at #1! Laver is second with 402).

 

[Fiero425]

By the way I think you WAY overrate Wilander and don't even mention Pancho Gonzales, who is one of the most underrated greats. My personal top dozen all-time would be:

1. Rod Laver
2. Roger Federer
3. Ken Rosewall
4. Bill Tilden
5. Novak Djokovic
6. Rafael Nadal
7. Pancho Gonzales
8. Pete Sampras
9. Bjorn Borg
10. Ivan Lendl
11. John McEnroe
12. Jimmy Connors

I agree, Wilander's never been on a list of mines much, but others seem to feel he's relevant due to his overachieving with not much of a weapon besides his speed and court coverage! I never cared for him and he was only #1 for about 5 min., dropping off the face of the rankings soon after his dad died I gather! I've only seen clips of Gonzalez in his later years; specifically that upset at Wimbledon by Charlie Pasarell! :ras: :cover

 

[El Dude]

I would rank Wilander behind Becker and Edberg, both of whom had more complete careers. Wilander mainly has that great three-Slam 1988.

I think also we need to differentiate between career accomplishments--which can be measured by statistics--and eyewitness testimonies of how good they were on court, and at their best. By the latter we might have to rate Lew Hoad as the greatest of all time because his peers said that when he was focused he was the best - better than Pancho, Rosewall, and even Laver, at least early on. The other problem with subjective rankings is that we get into questions of style, which is why some will never like Nadal because his game is more efficient than artistic--but the results are inarguable.

In the end, we're left with the results: what actually happened on court. There will always be over- and under-achievers, but part of "greatness" is how well a player's game translates to accomplishments. So I feel comfortable calling Andy Roddick a greater player to David Nalbandian because, in the end, he had a better career.

 

[Fiero425]

By the way I think you WAY overrate Wilander and don't even mention Pancho Gonzales, who is one of the most underrated greats. My personal top dozen all-time would be:

1. Rod Laver
2. Roger Federer
3. Ken Rosewall
4. Bill Tilden
5. Novak Djokovic
6. Rafael Nadal
7. Pancho Gonzales
8. Pete Sampras
9. Bjorn Borg
10. Ivan Lendl
11. John McEnroe
12. Jimmy Connors

I think Rafa and Novak are neck-and-neck now, but the writing is on the wall so I give the edge to Novak. Tilden was so great for so long, even though it is hard to compare him to more recent players. But greatness, in my opinion, is about how good you are compared to your peers and Tilden was ridiculously dominant (Tennis Base gives his 13 year-end #1s, 5 more than number two, Rod Laver!!! They also give him 645 weeks at #1! Laver is second with 402).

Unfortunately Rod had his own Nadal until the day he retired in Ken "Muscles" Rosewall! He had such a time with him and I never understood why! Those 2 WCT match finals were fantastic, but no lead was safe, and Rosewall took them both! Rod never won that 1 Champ. that he coveted so much; even taking Borg to 5 sets in '75 semi! :eyepop :cover :nono

 

[Great Hands]

Not only have all 7 big events so far this year been won by the Big 4, but they have constituted 11/14 final spots too!

Also, over half of the big finals so far this year (four of the seven) have been Djokovic-Murray finals.

 

[Great Hands]

I wrote some things that jumped out at me from this chart in your previous thread on this subject, El Dude, in November of last year, which I post again with some additions (I note that a couple of the points you have also made above):

1. From 2011 through 2013, the Big 4 won 41/42 of the big events, with only Ferrer's lone win in Paris in 2012 bucking the trend. Extraordinary.

[Edit: that was before you added the Olympics, so with that added it's 42/43!]

2. 2014 was their least dominant year for a decade, with 4 'non-big 4' winners, when there had never been more than 3 since 2004!

3. But in 2015 it reverted and went back down to only 1 'non-big 4' winner - one of the top 4 most dominant Big 4 years so far.

4. This stat is true of all of the big 4: since winning their first 'big 14' tournament, every member of the big 4 has gone on to win at least one of the big 14 events every year from then on right up to the present, except for one dodgy year for each of them. For Novak, it was 2010, for Roger 2013, for Andy 2014 and for Rafa 2015.

Will 2016 be another of these years, or will all the 'big 4' win at least one of the 'big 14' next year, I wonder?!

[Edit: 3 of them already have this year, the exception being Federer.]

5. Despite the big 4's dominance, there have only been 2 years so far where they won all 14 big events, 2011 and 2013.

In 2011 all the big 4 won big events, but in 2013 it was just Novak, Andy and Rafa, as Roger had his dodgy year.

(In both 2012 and 2015 they came close, winning 13/14, in 2012 with all the big 4 winning big events, but in 2015 just Novak, Andy and Roger, with Rafa having his dodgy year.)

So far this year, not only have all 7 big events been won by the Big 4, but they have constituted 11/14 final spots too!

For comparison, last year 25/28 final spots throughout the year were filled by Big 4 members.

Over half of the big finals so far this year (four of the seven) have been Djokovic-Murray finals.

 

[Great Hands]

It’s not just the tournament wins where the Big 4 are dominant, but also in the finals spots.

Here are the Big 4’s share of the 28 finals spots in the 14 big events since 2003:

2003: 3/28 - 11%
2004: 7/28 - 25%
2005: 13/28 - 46%
2006: 15/28 - 54%
2007: 21/28 - 75%
2008: 19/28 - 68%
2009: 20/28 - 71%
2010: 17/28 - 61%
2011: 23/28 - 82%
2012: 24/28 – 86%
2013: 20/28 - 71%
2014: 21/28 - 75%
2015: 25/28 - 89%
2016 (so far!): 11/14 - 79%

The Big 4’s share of the big finals grew steadily from 2003-2007 as Roger, Rafa, and then Novak rose to prominence.

2008 saw a dip, due perhaps to Federer’s mono and thus dip in form? (Roger didn’t win a single Masters title in 2008 and only made 2 finals. In the previous year, he reached 5 finals, winning 2.)

Then there was another dip in 2010 (due to Novak’s dodgy year? i.e. Not only did Novak not win a Masters event in 2010, he didn’t even make a single Masters final! (The previous year he made 5 finals, the next year he made 6.)

2011 and 2012 saw their most dominant shares up to that point, then a dip again in 2013 when Roger had his back problems, and in 2014 with Andy’s dodgy year and Rafa slipping.

But last year was the most dominant so far. (Even though Rafa had a poor 2015 by his standards, the other 3 took up the slack and so they still dominated, in fact even more than before.)

In terms of finals, 2016 is, so far, their 4th most dominant year...

 

[Fiero425]

It’s not just the tournament wins where the Big 4 are dominant, but also in the finals spots.

Here are the Big 4’s share of the 28 finals spots in the 14 big events since 2003:

2003: 3/28 - 11%
2004: 7/28 - 25%
2005: 13/28 - 46%
2006: 15/28 - 54%
2007: 21/28 - 75%
2008: 19/28 - 68%
2009: 20/28 - 71%
2010: 17/28 - 61%
2011: 23/28 - 82%
2012: 24/28 – 86%
2013: 20/28 - 71%
2014: 21/28 - 75%
2015: 25/28 - 89%
2016 (so far!): 11/14 - 79%

The Big 4’s share of the big finals grew steadily from 2003-2007 as Roger, Rafa, and then Novak rose to prominence.

2008 saw a dip, due perhaps to Federer’s mono and thus dip in form? (Roger didn’t win a single Masters title in 2008 and only made 2 finals. In the previous year, he reached 5 finals, winning 2.)

Then there was another dip in 2010 (due to Novak’s dodgy year? i.e. Not only did Novak not win a Masters event in 2010, he didn’t even make a single Masters final! (The previous year he made 5 finals, the next year he made 6.)

2011 and 2012 saw their most dominant shares up to that point, then a dip again in 2013 when Roger had his back problems, and in 2014 with Andy’s dodgy year and Rafa slipping.

But last year was the most dominant so far. (Even though Rafa had a poor 2015 by his standards, the other 3 took up the slack and so they still dominated, in fact even more than before.)

In terms of finals, 2016 is, so far, their 4th most dominant year...

I've been railing about this for years! It's ridiculous that the rest of the tour has been so gutless, allowing 4 players to own the titles, but also the runner-up positions as well! Never has it been so lame; even with the greatness of Borg, Connor, Lendl, and McEnroe in the draws! Two or more were upset most of the time; even in majors! That doesn't seem to happen much for the last decade and I find it appalling since I know the other players have the ability, just not the heart and mind! Simon illicited 100 UFE at the AO vs Nole; lost! Several years ago, Deliciamo Lopez was in the 3rd round of a clay event in a 3rd set TB against Federer! He was up 5-2, butchered an easy overhead at the net and preceded to give it all back allowing Roger to escape! Back at the FO in 2012, Tsonga had 4 MP's against Nole in the 4th set and let him off the hook, eventually giving the 5th away with a breadstick! Last season at Cincy, Grigor was up a break or 2 in 2 sets and let them both go against Murray! I can list dozens of these weak efforts, but my hands would just start shaking with rage! :cover :eyepop :nono uzzled

 

[Great Hands]

I've been railing about this for years! It's ridiculous that the rest of the tour has been so gutless, allowing 4 players to own the titles, but also the runner-up positions as well! Never has it been so lame; even with the greatness of Borg, Connor, Lendl, and McEnroe in the draws! Two or more were upset most of the time; even in majors! That doesn't seem to happen much for the last decade and I find it appalling since I know the other players have the ability, just not the heart and mind! Simon illicited 100 UFE at the AO vs Nole; lost! Several years ago, Deliciamo Lopez was in the 3rd round of a clay event in a 3rd set TB against Federer! He was up 5-2, butchered an easy overhead at the net and preceded to give it all back allowing Roger to escape! Back at the FO in 2012, Tsonga had 4 MP's against Nole in the 4th set and let him off the hook, eventually giving the 5th away with a breadstick! Last season at Cincy, Grigor was up a break or 2 in 2 sets and let them both go against Murray! I can list dozens of these weak efforts, but my hands would just start shaking with rage! :cover :eyepop :nono uzzled

I enjoyed this post! I love that you are so passionate about tennis, Fiero!

 

[Great Hands]

Between 1974-1984, if we exclude the Aus Open because the top players mostly didn't play it, then 25/33 Grand Slams were won by just 3 men!: Borg, McEnroe and Connors! Between 1978-1981 they won all 12 Grand Slams! So whilst I agree with you to some extent, this sort of dominance has happened before. But not for as long!

 

[Great Hands]

From the amateur era, there is also this stat: between 1925 (when the French Championships opened itself up to international players)-1929, again excluding the Aus Open, 13/15 slams were won by just three men: Lacoste, Cochet and Borotra, three of the 'Four Musketeers'. For 5 years, they won all but two of the slams (the Australian was won almost exclusively by Australians in those days). So, o.k, it's from the amateur era when the game was very different, but these events were open to international players yet these three guys completely dominated for that period.

So it does happen from time to time, but, as I say, not for as long as the current dominance of the Big 3/4.

But if it hadn't been for the pro/am split, with the great players leaving the grand slams for the pro circuit, we may have seen this kind of dominance happen more before (e.g. if players like Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez had been allowed to play in the Grand Slams throughout their careers). Because the most successful amateur players would then turn pro, and so there wasn't the same opportunity to have these extended periods of dominance. (Look at Laver, who won the Calendar Slam just before turning pro in 1962, and then won another Calendar Slam after he came back to Grand Slam play in 1969. Imagine how many slams he would have won in that intervening period! Or conversely, imagine if Novak, Roger or Rafa hadn't been able to play any Grand Slams between the ages of 25-29! Then we wouldn't have had this Big 3/4 dominance.)

 

[El Dude]

Great Hands, I really think ALL majors need to be included in total count, so if you look at the Pro Slams in the 60s, you have dominance by two players: from 1963 to 1969, Laver and Rosewall split all 21 tournaments between the two of them (technically they were only majors from 1963-67, so it was only 15 majors, but those two won all six in the '68-69).

One amazing factoid about Laver is not only did he win all four Open Era Slams in 1969, but he won all three of the former-Pro Slams that same year - part of the 18 tournaments he won that year.

 

[Great Hands]

Great Hands, I really think ALL majors need to be included in total count, so if you look at the Pro Slams in the 60s, you have dominance by two players: from 1963 to 1969, Laver and Rosewall split all 21 tournaments between the two of them (technically they were only majors from 1963-67, so it was only 15 majors, but those two won all six in the '68-69).

One amazing factoid about Laver is not only did he win all four Open Era Slams in 1969, but he won all three of the former-Pro Slams that same year - part of the 18 tournaments he won that year.

Oh I agree we should count pro slams, my point was that people don't (Laver is always talked about as having '11 slam titles' etc, and is always below Roger, Pete and Rafa in the grand slam titles lists), and so because the pro slams often get forgotten, it's easy to think that this big 3/4 dominance is unprecedented. But players like Laver and Rosewall were very dominant, as you point out. So I was saying that if the pros and amateurs hadn't been split, the dominance of Laver and Rosewall throughout the 1960s would be more clear and obvious in the stats and record books than it is at present. It was sort of a disagreement with Fiero, who was saying above that this sort of dominance had never happened before. As you point out, it has!

 

[El Dude]

I hear you, Great Hands - so let's do our part to change that!